To Change or Not to Change? A Study regarding the Satisfaction of Care Workers and Adolescents with the Motivational Interviewing Based Residential Youth Care Training Program Up2U

Figures & data

Table 1. Characteristics care workers (N = 12).

	Mean	SD (range)
Age	38.5	10.0 (27–56)
Working hours per week	31.4	3.3 (24–36)
Years of experience working with children/young people (including internships)	10.4	4.6 (5–20)
Years of experience in residential youth care	9.3	4.0 (5–15)
Years of experience in the current job	5.5	2.7 (2–10)
	N	%
Gender (female)	7	58.4
Level of education
Higher education	6	50.0
Secondary vocational education	6	50.0
Vocational training
Social pedagogical work	4	33.3
Social pedagogical assistance	2	16.6
Social work	2	16.6
Social work and services	1	8.3
Private training (“New Energy Movers”)	1	8.3
Youth welfare work	1	8.3
Management in healthcare	1	8.3
No previous experience with MI	9	75.0

Table 2. Characteristics adolescents (N = 9).

	Mean	SD (range)
Age	15.7	1.9 (12–17)
Length of stay (in months)	6.2	2.4 (2–10)
Age of first contact with youth care	9.6	3.4 (5–15)
Number of residences	3.3	1.6 (1–6)
Period of contact with mentor (in months)	4.9	2.8 (2–9)
Number of previous conversations	18.1	31.3 (2–100)
Length of acquaintance between the adolescence and the mentor (in months)	5.2	3.0 (1.5–10)
	N	%
Gender (male)	6	66.7
Residence
Voluntarily	2	22.2
Forced	7	77.8

Figure 1. The process of coding and testing inter-rater reliability.

Table 3. Kappa coding sessions.

	Session 1	Session 2	Session 3	Session 4
Care workers’ version	0.68	0.59	0.95
Youth version	0.60	0.65	0.78	0.96

Table 4. Better and worse aspects of recorded conversation, as compared to previous conversations, according to residential care workers.

Better (N = 9)	N	%	Worse (N = 6)	N	%
Adolescent had more opportunities to talk	3	33	Negative effect of the recording	3	50
Better listening	1	11	Conversation did not reach a higher level	1	17
Greater use of reflection	1	11	Conversation was worse	1	17
Less judgment in questions	1	11	Care worker should have confronted the adolescent with behavior more often	1	17
Use of the right questions	1	11
Formulation of the questions	1	11	Inexperience with method: this required a lot of thinking time during the conversation	1	17
Confronting adolescent with behavior	1	11
More opportunities for silence	1	11
Going into depth during the conversation	1	11
The adolescent understood the mentor	1	11
More serious conversation	1	11
Scheduling of the conversation	1	11
Preparation for the conversation	1	11
Greater proficiency with MI	1	11

Table 5. Agreement of residential care workers with statements regarding recorded versus unrecorded (previous) conversations (N = 11).

	Agree		Neutral		Disagree
Statements	N	%	N	%	N	%
During the recorded conversation, you devoted more discussion to how the adolescent would like to change the situation	6	54.5	1	9.1	4	36.4
The recorded conversation lasted longer	5	45.5	–	–	6	54.5
During the recorded conversation, you talked more about the change that the adolescent would like to achieve^a	4	40	–	–	6	60
During the recorded conversation, you talked less often about why the adolescent would like to change^a	4	40	–	–	6	60
During the recorded conversation, the adolescent had more room to express their own opinions	4	36.4	–	–	7	63.6
The recorded conversation was better	3	27.3	1	9.1	7	63.6
During the recorded conversation, you did not focus as much on the adolescent’s confidence in the ability to change something about the situation	3	27.3	–	–	8	72.7
The purpose of the recorded conversation was less clear than the purpose of previous conversations.	2	18.2	–	–	9	81.8
The questions you asked during the recorded conversation were not as good as those you had asked during previous conversations.	1	9.1	–	–	10	90.9

^aN = 10.